petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to grant ... - Election Law Blog

More documents

Recommendations

Info

21aAppendix DAlford 4 and Dr. Norfleet W. Rives. 5 The Court finds thatthe expert witnesses presented at trial are qualified, dueto their education and experience, to give expert opinionsregarding the Gingles factors and the factors consideredby the Court in assessing the totality of circumstances.B. Gingles I1. Establishing a Hispanic Citizen-Voting-Age-Population MajorityMr. Ely created, presented, and defended sixillustrative districts 6 to demonstrate the feasibility of4. Dr. Alford is an Associate Professor of Political Science atRice University, and holds B.S., M.P.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degreesin Political Science. Dr. Alford has worked as a consultant innumerous voting rights cases.5. Dr. Rives is a Senior Lecturer in the Department ofFinance at the Fisher College of Business at Ohio State University.(Def’s Ex. 4.) Dr. Rives holds A.B., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees inEconomics, and studied demography and statistics as a researchfellow with the Office of Population Research at The WoodrowWilson School at Princeton University. Dr. Rives has worked as aresearch fellow with the U.S. Census Bureau and as a consultantin voting rights cases.6. (1) The original (July 2008) Illustrative District had anestimated HCVAP in 2008 of 50.1%. (Pl.’s Trial Ex. 1, at 8.)(2) The alternative (CVAP based) Illustrative Districthad an estimated HCVAP in 2008 of 53.1%. (Id. at Ex.5, at 3.)(3) The SSRV Illustrative District had an estimatedHCVAP of 50.5% in 2008. (Id. at Ex. 5, at 2.)
22aAppendix Dcomplying with the Gingles I precondition-to show that ageographically compact district in which Hispanics willmake up a majority of the eligible voters can be drawnin Irving.a. Criteria for Drawing Illustrative DistrictsMr. Ely constructed the illustrative districts consistentwith the traditional principles of drawing districts andwell-established demographic considerations. (TrialTr. vol. 1, 52-55, Feb. 17, 2009.) First, districts shouldgenerally have equal total population. For municipalities,the population size of each district should not deviatefrom the others by more than 10%. The illustrativedistricts created by Mr. Ely all contained within 1% ofthe ideal population based on the 2000 Census. (Pl.’sPretrial Br. 11.) Second, districts must comply with legalrequirements, such as the Equal Protection Clause. Andthird, districts should be drawn consistent with existingofficial political boundaries (along city or county lines) andinformal geographic boundaries, such as neighborhoods orcommunities that share a common interest. Here, Mr. Elyconstructed illustrative districts using undivided Censusblocks and used recognizable boundaries such as streets.(Pl.’s Ex. 1, at 6.)(4) Illustrative District A had an estimated HCVAPin 2008 of 58.0%. (Id. at Ex. 5, at 4.)(5) Illustrative District B had an estimated HCVAPin 2008 of 56.5%. (Id. at Ex. 8.)(6) Illustrative District C had an estimated HCVAPin 2008 of 55.6%. (Id. at Exs. 15 and 17.)
Page 3 and 4:
iiPARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGAND RULE
Page 5:
ivTable of ContentsPageREASONS FOR
Page 11:
xCited AuthoritiesStatutes and Othe
Page 14 and 15:
1PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARIP
Page 16 and 17:
3The Court should grant the petitio
Page 18 and 19:
5has “an obligation to explain to
Page 20 and 21: 7because the City has substantially
Page 22 and 23: 9City of IrvingPopulation, Voting A
Page 24 and 25: 11The district court granted summar
Page 26 and 27: 13I. This Petition Presents An Impo
Page 28 and 29: 15First, the issue has increasingly
Page 30 and 31: 17wards had far more eligible voter
Page 32 and 33: 19or practice, they cannot claim to
Page 34 and 35: 21This case—in which the choice b
Page 36 and 37: 23two, five, or ten, or one-half.
Page 38 and 39: 25In Chen, the Fifth Circuit reache
Page 40: 27Importantly, then, the Fourteenth
Page 43 and 44: 30Tennessee voters’ dilution chal
Page 45 and 46: 32Under the Plan, as noted above, D
Page 47 and 48: 34slightly larger than 9.9%—prese
Page 49 and 50: 1aAppendix AAPPENDIX
Page 51 and 52: 2aAppendix APER CURIAM: *This case
Page 53 and 54: 4aAPPENDIX B — Appendix MEMORANDU
Page 55 and 56: 6aAppendix Bpopulation numbers are
Page 57 and 58: 8aAppendix Bwhich total population
Page 59 and 60: 10aAppendix Bthe court does acknowl
Page 61 and 62: 12aAppendix CON PETITION FOR REHEAR
Page 63 and 64: 14aAppendix DIrving’s at-large el
Page 65 and 66: 16aAppendix Dother things, the at-l
Page 67 and 68: 18aAppendix DThornburg v. Gingles,
Page 69: 20aAppendix Dfailed to establish a
Page 73 and 74: 24aAppendix Done-hundred percent co
Page 75 and 76: 26aAppendix Dhis opinion that would
Page 77 and 78: 28aAppendix Dto estimate the 2008 H
Page 79 and 80: 30aAppendix Dvotes of Hispanics hav
Page 81 and 82: 32aAppendix Daverage household size
Page 83 and 84: 34aAppendix DDr. Rives attempts to
Page 85 and 86: 36aAppendix Dwith sampling error ac
Page 87 and 88: 38aAppendix DIn his expert report,
Page 89 and 90: 40aAppendix DAs Dr. Rives pointed o
Page 91 and 92: 42aAppendix DC. Gingles II & III-Ra
Page 93 and 94: 44aAppendix Dthis methodology canno
Page 95 and 96: 46aAppendix Dthat the confidence th
Page 97 and 98: 48aAppendix Dto Dr. Alford’s hypo
Page 99 and 100: 50aAppendix DD. Totality of the Cir
Page 101 and 102: 52aAppendix DThe Court concludes th
Page 103 and 104: 54aAppendix DNotably, James Dickens
Page 105 and 106: 56aAppendix D1231, 1245-46, 173 L.E
Page 107 and 108: 58aAppendix D2. Proof of Changed De
Page 109 and 110: 60aAppendix DPlaintiff has not empl
Page 111 and 112: 62aAppendix Dthe way in which the v
Page 113 and 114: 64aAppendix Dthe requirement that t
Page 115 and 116: 66aAPPENDIX E — RELEVANT Appendix
Page 117: 68aAppendix Eof insurrection or reb
show all

petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to grant ... - Election Law Blog

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?